You are not logged in.

Announcement

Welcome to the the original, the one and only, Spiceislander Talkshop. The site remains Grenadian owned and hosted in the United States.

#11 Jul 05, 2017 9:06 am

Slice
Active

Re: When we were Kings: Whispering Death

Hist, you are batting ah thousand lately.  Man you posted some sweet topics. I know there are  other West Indian fast bowlers who took more wickets than Holden, but lord I just love Michael Holdings.

Ah doh remember the year it was and I could look it up, because ah have the cricket book by the late PM of Jamaica, but I do remember a test match in Jamaica, it think it was against England also, when the England batsmen, was fraid to come to the wicket.  Ah swear that day Holding got about  five wickets for no runs.  what ah day that was.

I like Andy Roberts, but my favorite fast bowler of all time is Holding.  My favorite cricketers of all time is Gary Sobers and Jeff and Gordon Greenidge. (see the Greenidge connection there)

Now ah love Richards, Andy Roberts, Rowe, Rohan, and Lance Gibbs, but my Cricket God is still Mike Holding.

Our cricket channel in Baltimore is called Willow, and ah swear if I ent looking at news, ah looking at willow, and ah just want them one day to show old footage of the most famous  West Indian cricketers.

Offline

#12 Jul 05, 2017 9:12 am

Slice
Active

Re: When we were Kings: Whispering Death

Calypso wrote:
New Historian wrote:

Aah I so miss those old glory days of cricket - they did us proud!

Nice series of interviews with "Firey" Geoff Boycott about the world's best fast bowlers - meaning West Indians of course!



Yes, Holding was one of our best men in the sport of cricket. Joel Garner, aka Big Bird, Viv Richards, Colin Croft, Collis KIng-- you named them. I didn't like how the Caribbean banished those "rebel" cricketers from playing in the 80s. You had so much talent in the group that went to South Africa. It was their choice to do so. They ended up playing the harshest price of all. Viv is beautiful!

I wish it was much harder.  do you now realize what they did?  they played in SA, at that time the most RACIST Country in the world. If I had to punish them, they punishment would be, to not even return to their country of birth.  They should stay in SA.

I saw a documentary on that, and in a way, none of them got back to their original selves.  Most took to drinking and drugs.  It is not good to wish folks harm, but they all got what they deserve.  they were too damn Greedy.

Last edited by Slice (Jul 05, 2017 9:13 am)

Offline

#13 Jul 05, 2017 9:30 am

Slice
Active

Re: When we were Kings: Whispering Death

At that time the entire Caribbean was shouting an end to Apartheid.  White tourist was hated due to the system in  SA.  I remember once ah was in Gouyave with me dad and ah bunch ah tourist came through from town and almost everyone on the streets of Gouyave was booing them because of SA.

Offline

#14 Jul 05, 2017 12:05 pm

gripe
Active

Re: When we were Kings: Whispering Death

Slice, you need to have solid proof for your statement that "in a way, none of them got back to their original selves.  Most took to drinking and drugs." The last sentence is particularly serious. 

To give some perspective, if you have not already read the article, you may wish to read "Branded a rebel: Cricket's forgotten men", found here: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/sport/wes … index.html 

Written in 2013, the article does not give any indication that the former West Indian players were drug or alcohol prone as a result of the very severe penalties that they received for touring South Africa. There is, however, references to two of the "rebels", that I wish to highlight:

1. David Murray:

"Murray, once a star, is now drifting, unable to hold a job in Barbados. In the years after the tour, he eventually lost more than just his career." (Murray's situation may have improved since the article was written.)

2. Franklyn Stephenson:

"For Stephenson, the once-rising star, his cricketing past is behind him.
He is now a golf instructor at a country club in Barbados.
But he still finds a way to connect to the sport he loved at the cricket and golf academy he started near his home.
There, a photo of his rebel team sits proudly on the shelf. It is not the memories of the tour he wants to forget, but what came after.
"Nobody looked out for us," Stephenson said."

The last part of the article has some sobering reflections of some of the "rebels" and others about the real, broader, impact of the tour. For example, according to Stephenson, in reacting to the criticism that the "rebels" were mercenaries:

'"What do mercenaries do?" Stephenson asked. "They go and fight somebody else's cause.
"Well, yes I was a mercenary for black people's cause, because wherever I've been, I've been an ambassador for my country, my race and the game of cricket. So if that's being a mercenary, then yes I was."'

This speaks volumes: "And to this day, they hold strongly to the belief that being in South Africa in 1983 made a difference in disbanding apartheid, less than a decade after the West Indies players were there."

To me the entire controversy proves, yet again, that cricket is much, much, more than a game!

Last edited by gripe (Jul 05, 2017 12:08 pm)

Offline

#15 Jul 05, 2017 12:57 pm

Slice
Active

Re: When we were Kings: Whispering Death

Yep and ah posted the CNN special.  Leh me post it right here.

Here it is.  I honestly think this was one of the best programs I saw on CNN.

Offline

#16 Jul 05, 2017 1:17 pm

New Historian
Active

Re: When we were Kings: Whispering Death

That's what happens when you take Rome's gold. When it comes to apartheid: no forgive, no forget. And what was it all for? They sold their souls, for what? Where's the money now? Was it worth it?

Offline

#17 Jul 05, 2017 2:54 pm

gripe
Active

Re: When we were Kings: Whispering Death

Thanks Slice! I will have a look at the video later today.

New Historian, the disgust with the "rebels" have to be tempered with fairness. It is interesting that criticisms of the West Indian "rebels" have not been balanced by realizing that their punishment was extreme compared to the punishment that the English "rebels" received. To think that the West Indians were banned for life when their cricketing careers did not have an equivalent life span. Overkill is not being reasonable.

Here are some responses to your questions:

1. "What was it all for?": I think that Stephenson's comments in the CNN piece that I linked earlier gives a good idea at least to his reason for participating. The other 19 "rebels" may have shared the same, or similar, views. Unpopular does not mean that one needs to be crucified.

2. "They sold their souls, for what?": I refer you to my response to your first question because this second question is a slight twist on your first question.

3. "Where's the money now?": Who knows? Your question has the tone that maybe you know and that you know that the money is all spent, finished. That is just one reasonable outcome. But, if I am correct about your thinking on that issue, there has to be proof for any suggestion that the money is long finished. The problem with that thinking is that it is possible that some of the "rebels" invested their earnings wisely and that today they are enjoying the benefits. I have no proof, but that, too, is a reasonable assumption.

4. "Was it worth it?": I refer you again to the CNN piece that, at the end, pointed to how the "rebels'" actions helped end Apartheid. If that has been proven that is a most profound, worthy, invaluable, contribution from the "rebels" to not only South Africa, but also to the world!

Offline

#18 Jul 05, 2017 3:19 pm

New Historian
Active

Re: When we were Kings: Whispering Death

The mild treatment meted out by England and other test playing nations had NOTHING to do with the stance of the West Indies. England were dragged kicking and screaming to sanctions on South Africa anyway, so of course they were only going to give them a slap on the wrist. Apartheid was far more emotional to black people than white. What about all those other West Indian cricketers who didn't take the gold? Why did some prefer to put greed over their conscience? This wasn't just punishment meted out by the WI Board, it was by EVERYONE: Yagga Rowe couldn't put his face inside Sabina Park after that, for fear of being run out of the place. SA were trying to drive a wedge into the WI cricketing community, but all they did was make our resolve stronger.

And as for "how the "rebels'" actions helped end Apartheid" - that is a total fabrication. The only thing that ended apartheid was Blacks making the country ungovernable.

Like Judas, they paid the price of betrayal.

Offline

#19 Jul 05, 2017 4:32 pm

gripe
Active

Re: When we were Kings: Whispering Death

New Historian, don't be so unfair. You are doing so on two levels.

First, you wrongly dismiss the idea that the West Indian "rebels" were not treated unfairly compared to the English "rebels", supporting your position with the argument that "The mild treatment meted out by England and other test playing nations had NOTHING to do with the stance of the West Indies." How could you seriously make that argument? Even if you take the position that the separate governing bodies -- the British and the West Indies' respective cricket boards -- were responsible for the level and type of penalty (I have to research that issue even though the ICC I recall had its input), there is still the fact that the West Indians were treated more harshly than the British, for doing the same thing. If Apartheid, with all its atrocities, was so horrible, with the mistreatment of Black South Africans the original sin in that situation, how could you be so comfortable with the unnecessarily extreme punishment of the West Indian "rebels" compared to the English "rebels"?

Second, and more egregiously, is your simplistic and totally incorrect statement that "The only thing that ended apartheid was Blacks making the country ungovernable." Here are the problems with that argument:

(a) Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "Blacks" because, on reading your statement one could reasonably conclude that you meant South African "Blacks". But, that would be a narrow reading and one that would fly in the face of the fact that, worldwide, other "Blacks" were deeply and passionately involved in the push to overturn Apartheid. Protests in America, by TransAfrica Forum, come to mind. For example, "In 1984, during the Reagan Administration, Robinson and other supporters founded the Free South Africa Movement, which resulted in over 5,000 people being arrested for protesting in front of the South African Embassy." The source is the following link, from which more information can be found: http://www.blackpast.org/aah/transafrica-1977

(b) Among the other "Blacks" who were engaged in the effort to end Apartheid, were the West Indian "rebels". You claim that such a position "is a total fabrication" but provide no evidence to support that notion.

(c) Many others, many non-Blacks, were involved in both the South African and the global campaign against apartheid. Here are some references that you should take to heart:

On the South African local scene:

"Outreach Activities

To succeed, activists knew that they had to work across racial lines; as Molefe said, "uniting the largest section of South Africans committed to a peaceful and just future" was the key.[29] The UDF’s membership spanned whites, blacks, and Indians; it included labor unions, students, civic associations, women’s groups, and churches. Churches served as meeting places, clergymen such as Desmond Tutu helped rally support through public speeches and organizing, and the South African Council of Churches defended political prisoners and supported their families.[30] White groups such as the National Union of South African Students also joined in, along with Indian groups. " Source:  https://tavaana.org/en/content/struggle … uth-africa 

On the Global scene:

"The United Nations General Assembly had denounced apartheid in 1973, and in 1976 the UN Security Council voted to impose a mandatory embargo on the sale of arms to South Africa. In 1985, the United Kingdom and United States imposed economic sanctions on the country.

Under pressure from the international community, the National Party government of Pieter Botha sought to institute some reforms, including abolition of the pass laws and the ban on interracial sex and marriage. The reforms fell short of any substantive change, however, and by 1989 Botha was pressured to step aside in favor of F.W. de Klerk. De Klerk’s government subsequently repealed the Population Registration Act, as well as most of the other legislation that formed the legal basis for apartheid. A new constitution, which enfranchised blacks and other racial groups, took effect in 1994, and elections that year led to a coalition government with a nonwhite majority, marking the official end of the apartheid system." Source:  http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid

Finally, New Historian, any lover of justice should be aware that, even for those who willingly or unwillingly, for greed or other motivation, side-step the law or established rules, JUSTICE LIVES ONLY IF FAIRNESS IS AT ITS CORE!

Could you apply some fairness to the West Indian "rebels"?

Last edited by gripe (Jul 05, 2017 4:59 pm)

Offline

#20 Jul 05, 2017 4:58 pm

Slice
Active

Re: When we were Kings: Whispering Death

gripe, how can 18 black folks accept the SA citizenship, while they were there knowing fully we;; that SA blacks could not go to places, they can go for one month.  To me that was the disgrace with the entire story.

These BASTARDS sold their soul and, are trying to justify it.

I went to my wife graduation from a college up here, at that time that college was about 80% white and everyone of the students cap had down Apartheid now.

I kinda disagree with New historian, I think it was not just one issue that caused the dismantling of the system, but world wide pressure had ah bunch to do with it.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB